4.5 Review

Assessing the treatment effect from multiple trials in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY REVIEW
Volume 21, Issue 124, Pages 147-151

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09059180.00000912

Keywords

Cochrane Collaboration; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; meta-analysis; pirfenidone

Funding

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim
  2. InterMune
  3. Celgene
  4. Gilead

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The magnitude of treatment effect can be assessed by a number of methods. One method of collectively analysing data is that used by the Cochrane Collaboration. Their systematic reviews identify, analyse and present research-based evidence in an accessible format. These reviews may contain meta-analyses combining data from multiple studies to provide robust evaluations of overall treatment effects. In 2003, Cochrane reviews of data for treatment with corticosteroids in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) found no evidence supporting their use; similarly, reviews of immunomodulatory agents found very little evidence to support their use. A recent update of these Cochrane reviews failed to identify any evidence supporting the use of corticosteroids in IPF; however, a review of non-steroid agents in the treatment of IPF identified 15 clinical trials suitable for analysis. Two trials of interferon-gamma-1b were combined, and no treatment effect was observed in terms of survival. Two Japanese trials of treatment with pirfenidone were combined, and a positive effect of pirfenidone on pulmonary function decline was observed. Metaanalysis of three phase III studies suggested that pirfenidone significantly increased progressionfree survival by 30%. The findings of this systematic review, although not presenting new original data, together with an acceptable safety profile, suggest that pirfenidone may have a role in IPF treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available